If we consider the experiencer, consciousness and perception [mind] as working with but not necessarily of the brain, can we not also consider there to similarly be a subconscious mind?
If so, then what would make it particular to the individual [as it is not ‘you’ thinking]~ could it be working collectively [morphic fields etc] as ‘nature’?
I wonder if there is a level of communication relative to this, by which we somehow know things about one another, and a dog knows when you are on your way home etc, etc.
NO. What ever is going on, it is in your brain case. This doesn’t mean that “mind” isn’t active below the level of conscious awareness, but there is no separation of mind itself. One brain, one mind.
When you’re thinking of it, it is conscious, when you’re not thinking of it, it is subconscious, and yet the consciousness is moving between the same medium. In other words, what you were thinking of a moment ago was ‘in the mind’, and what you are now considering is also in the mind, thus we can assume that here and there are both in the mind but only one aspect is conscious thought, hence the former or future aspect of thought is unconscious mind!
Maybe. We could say that ‘pre-conscious’ is the mind prior to being consciously focused upon [like an ocean where our thoughts are like fishes to be focused upon whence they become our experienced thoughts]. Whereas unconscious could be the behind the scenes workings of the brain, and ‘unconscious mind’ could be a more universal nature of mind.
I think there is a difference between the preoccupation of the mind/brain with whatever is at hand. But I feel the further differentiation into a pre-conscious and a subconscious to be tenuous. Pre, and sub imply positional and temporal qualities. When thinking of consciousness, do not think of the here and now, think of the progression blocked by the focus of attention, and it's just as easily not to fixed it, but let it unravel toward an open ended position. Here is an example where "consciousness" is limited, as it was some simple entity.
Well we dont have terms for things we are still discovering, hence I felt the need to differentiate in that manner. The subconscious is informations we are not currently aware of, rather like processors in a computer, it is all going on behind the scenes. I wouldnt say that ‘consciousness’ is even the right term for that!? Whereas the presence of mind, qualia and anything within our conscious reach but not being focused upon, could be classified as pre-conscious i.e. not being that which we are wholly conscious of but is within that sphere.
It would seem to me that we move from non-consciousness [what we usually call sub-consciousness] into consciousness ~ yet that would surely be impossible? Its a bit like asking life to be a movement from death into life, where the meanings contradict completely. Hence conscious mind should have a subconscious mind ~ life to life/one entity.
I’d have to say no. As a semi-dualist, I think the mind is distinct from the brain as a particular type of causation, and that causation is defined in terms of our direct mental experience of it- i.e., mental causes are not physical causes because they involve evaluation, deliberation, desire, and so on. So there’s no much room for ‘subconscious mental’ to mean anything in how I’m seeing persons.
Mind is divided in two parts; conscious and unconscious.
These both use to work independently but affect each other, though this level of affectance differs in each person and can be changed by effort. And also, even in the case of a single person, this coordination does not remain the same all the time but changes even without our knowledge.
The case of animals is also the same. The only difference is that, contrary to humans, their conscious mind is not as active as humans.
What we call conscious mind, is basically responsible for free will that we have. And, that differs humans from the animals. That is precise reason why animals does not evolve mentally that much like humans do and they (animals) stick to their nature.
But, humans have the tendency to outlaw the nature.
maybe, but the things you just thought about are fading out of consciousness, and new coming in. at some point may we not assume that there is no consciousness present but the information we were conscious of remains and can be processed by the brain?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your meaning here but wouldn’t that kind of describe a robot?
Maybe you need to define the “consciousness” in the terms which you speak of here.
If there is a tendency to speak of consciousness as that which goes on in the act of processing, or selectively attending to processing, then the robot analogy would serve well. In that schema, the conscious and so called sub conscious processes could be delineated in terms of computer processing, not the other way around. This is why there is difficulty in answering questions regarding the possibility of conscious computers.
Maybe we are coming to a point where terms such as conscious/subconscious will be seen as entailing more than verifiable processes.
The more profound question is - what is it about consciousness which makes such comparisons impossible? (At least at the present time)
Though, this concept of the consciousness is not well entertained in the west and even here at ILP too, but consciousness is not a doing entity. It is merely a watching or feeling entity.
In the analogy of the computer, brain is the hardware of the computer, mind is the software of the computer, while consciousness is the person, who is watching at the screen and is getting affected and attached to the visions.
Brain does not think. It is merely a mediator between body and mind. Mind analyzes the information gathered by the senses of the body, which is routed to it through brain. But, mind does not feel anything. It acts in a mechanical way and presents its all thoughts in the front of consciousness. And, consciousness gets attracted to the most dominant thought at any given moment and feels it. Here, the Will acts as eyes of the watcher as it connects consciousness with the screen and also gives feedbacks to the mind, which again orders body to act in a certain way through mind, if required.
The concept of making a feeling software is in the air since the mid of last century. But, they have not been able to it so far, and would never able to do so, because though they can create software, but not a watcher, who would able to feel and give reverse feedbacks.
(1) If (i) consciousness works with the brain & (ii) consciousness doesn’t work necessarily of the brain, then (iii) possibly there is similar working relationship with a subconscious mind & consciousness.
This is a definite possibility. (i) and (iii) are consistent with one another. Can even suppose that brain is subconscious, so have a relationship with subconscious and brain. Add on (ii) to this situation, we find out that consciousness works of the brain. So subconscious mind would also have a relationship with the brain. So, Consciousness works with the brain implies it isn’t necessary that Consciousness works with the brain. And so Subconscious mind works with the brain implies it isn’t necessary that Subconscious mind works with the brain. Is not the Subconscious mind in fact the brain to begin with?
All you need to do to realise this is whack yourself over the head (brain) with a brick to discover that consciousness and brain are one and the same. Our brains are vastly complex, but they are not working with anything external!